Boys, Obviously when your argument falls short you attack the messenger. I have not opressed, or threatened any homosexual, in fact some former homosexuals are among my froends. The sense of opression comes from an obsessive falacy promoted by the socialist Greens that homosexuals do not have equal rights with heterosexuals. The opression is all in their minds. Homosexuals have functioned equally well in our society for centuries.

Philo
1) I am not a boy
2) I have not attacked you. My comments were directed to the implied reader of the contribution of opinionated2. If the cap fits ...
3) Your comments about “former homosexuals” speak volumes. My friends include “former heterosexuals” and “lifelong homosexuals” too.
4) You have called homosexuality unnatural and a threat to the social order. In my view, that is demeaning and marginalising.
5) My main point is that not all Christians think as you do

Rhian,
Please explain from biological science how anul sex is a design feature exclusive to homosexuals, who are very capable of fertilizing an ovum. Vaginas and wombs were designed for the male penis by nature, with fertile sperm being rightly deposited into the vagina. A scientific fact! and depositing fertile sperm into excreta is not a design feature. Such speaks highly of ones low view of one's self image. By so doing homosexuals demean themselves, and is the reason they feel opressed and outcast from normality.

Sexuality has a high order on one's view of one's self esteem. Pushing penises into bums will never realize one's image in another human produced in their likness.

Philo,

Are you really this ugly a person?

Your comments have absolutely nothing to do with whether a homosexual should be allowed to marry. Why do you confine yourself to the bedroom and ignore all the other benefits of relationships?

Thank you, for the biology lesson, but, sorry to inform you, procreation is not the only reason people have sex. And, it certainly isn't the only reason people marry.

Before giving biology lessons should you learn how to spell the body parts first?

Under your very limited view of the world with "sex for procreation" as your pathetic argument, women who can't have children should never marry and men who can't have children should never marry either.

Do you realise how absurd your argument really is?

Do you represent your GOD well Philo?

Are you really this bitter and twisted Philo?

The only reason people marry is for an exclusive sexual partner. All other forms of loving human relationships are not identified on a sexual basis. GET THIS MESSAGE! The nature of marriage differs as the term 'marriage' means exactly a union of a woman and a man - that their union is a sexual one. That is the difference. That Gays want to register their exclusive sexual relationship as marriage is merely to have anal sex recognised as a marriage union, and have it recorded by the Government Registry.

A sick idea!

I would understand that Islam would not look kindly on homosexual relations, let alone "gay marriage". Given the level of tension existing between substantial segments of the Islamic world and the "West", surely the adoption of gay marriage by the west could only exacerbate already delicate international harmonies? But then, we in the West are God's children, are we not, and can do just whatever we like, can't we, and hang the consequences? What brotherhood of Man? That's just a figment of someone else's imagination, isn't it?

I expect the Christian Right would be dead against gay marriage, as well as the Muslim Right, though I'm unsure of the Judaist position, but suspect it wouldn't be in favour. Then of course there are Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, etc views which could be considered - or don't they count? We already regularly witness outbreaks of conflict between Christian and other groups, started by one side or the other, and from no readily identifiable causation. Shall we unwittingly add further to the potentials for rivalry and conflict?

In addition to the various religious sensibilities, there are also far-ranging cultural norms to consider, or to ignore at potential peril. Are we so insular in the West, so self-centred, arrogant and possibly naive as to think we can behave as we like without due consideration of the bigger picture, of the overriding cause of peace and harmony?

Gay marriage may seem like an insignificant and inconsequential issue for some, but for others it may be construed as an outrage.

If a book or cartoon can result in a call for jihaad, or a criticism cause a stoning, what else may be possible? Certainly there is a long path to common understanding, tolerance and goodwill, but this is a road all sides must travel to attain lasting harmony.

What price peace and goodwill? Can a minority make a concession to the greater good?

Let us indeed look to our consciences, for some issues must fall outside of that exceedingly broad spectrum of "human rights" - when we venture to truly open our eyes to that spectrum.